OFT Announcement made 10.00 am 24/4

nickmack

machomanugget wrote: »

Mr Justice Andrew Smith said: "This does not necessarily mean they [the charges] are unfair."

I've updated the FAQ in the Reclaim Help thread with a brief explanation of the situation before Martin gets a chance to give his full report.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=400981

Paul_Herring

Another article that should be updated during the day: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=440749&in_page_id=2&ito=1453

JABWootton

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7364422.stm

Some Good News for those Recaliming Bank Charges, but don't get too excited as the Banks will probably lodge an appeal after the judge has determined how much the banks should pay back

martint123

It's not all good news (for those claiming)

Mr Justice Andrew Smith said his judgement, "does not necessarily mean they [the charges] are unfair."
He also decided against the OFT, saying that the banks' terms and conditions were plain and intelligible.

Odd_Fellow

JABWootton wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7364422.stm

Some Good News for those Recaliming Bank Charges, but don't get too excited as the Banks will probably lodge an appeal after the judge has determined how much the banks should pay back

The judge is not going to decide how much or even whether they should pay anything back. Re-read the story.

My own comment on it is here: www.bankchargesscandal.com

Odd_Fellow

wrote:

He also decided against the OFT, saying that the banks' terms and conditions were plain and intelligible.

Quite how the judge can claim this is beyond me. Back on January 24th 08, there was a news story containing an extract from a Nationwide leaflet that basically stated that the charges were a "penalty".

Mr Geoffrey Vos QC acting on behalf of Nationwide attempted to dismiss this. How? Wait for the punch line;

He said it was, simply, "wrong".

Blimey, how much of the other literature that the bank used was "wrong"? If such mis-information is "intelligible" I'd be interested to see what was thought to be misleading gobbledegook.

saffronflowers

Here is the actual judgement - it is quite interesting reading - OK I am sad!

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/oft_judgment_240408.pdf

andrewman

well the court has replied to the banks. This does not affect anything to do with the customer, customers requests for repayment are still frozen, the final outcome may be 2010 at the earliest, by which time the banks will have made even more money from us, by charging anything they want until final outcome is reached. I beleive anyone chasing their costs back now may decide to give up trying, because it is becoming a waste of time and money to chase something that may not become repayable once the final appeals are heard. you have to take into account the time it has taken just to get this far, so how many more years are people prepared to wait.:mad:

Edinburghlass_2

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/

BettyBee

is it any wonder so many folk are moving abroad to live, this country is a sham and the government just seem to manage to mess things up even more with every decision they make.

get me outta here.